General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v Saadien-Raad [2009] EWHC 914 (Admin)

Case No CO/3251/2009[2009] EWHC 914 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday, 23rd April 2009
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
SIR THAYNE FORBES
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Between
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCILClaimantv
Between
DR MAURICE SAADIEN-RAADDefendant
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Stephen Brassington (instructed by the General Medical Council) appeared for Claimant for The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
J U D G M E N T

SIR THAYNE FORBES

[1]: This is an application to extend the interim order of suspension imposed by the claimant's Interim Orders Panel on 2nd November 2007 pursuant to section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983. The claimant in these proceedings is the GMC (hereafter the GMC) and the period of extension sought is one of 12 months from 1st May 2009.[2]In General Medical Council v Dr Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, Lady Justice Arden set out some of the factors relevant to a consideration of an application to extend an interim order beyond its 18 month maximum, namely(a) the gravity of the allegation,(b) the nature of the evidence,(c) the seriousness of risk of harm to patients,(d) the reasons why the case has not been concluded and(e) prejudice to the defendant if an order is continued; see paragraph 28 of her judgment.[3]The facts of this particular matter are fully and carefully set out and summarised in paragraphs 3 to 16 of Mr Brassington's carefully prepared written skeleton argument prepared on behalf of the GMC. In the circumstances of this case, it is not necessary for me to take up time by reading out that careful summary. I refer to it and adopt it but do not in the circumstances repeat it. Part of the reason why I have decided that it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail is that it is clear from a letter dated 13th March 2009 from the defendant's solicitors, written to the GMC with regard to the Interim Orders Panel's reconsideration of the matter on 19th March 2009, that the doctor accepts the inevitability of the current order of suspension being maintained and thus continuing. In paragraph 3 of that letter, the solicitors state as follows:
"In view of the fact that the information available to the Panel has not changed and as the Fitness to Practise Panel are due to commence their consideration of the case in September 2009 Dr Saadien-Raad is content for the current order to be maintained."
[4]Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this matter, Mr Brassington submitted (correctly in my view) that the GMC has acted reasonably and expeditiously throughout these proceedings. I also accept his submission that there remains an overwhelming public interest in the doctor's continued suspension from the Register. As Mr Brassington submits, the allegations against the doctor are wide-ranging and extremely serious. They are concerned with repeated instances of dishonesty, attempting to pervert the course of justice, fraud with regard to his CV and poor professional performance. Furthermore, I accept that, since the doctor resides in South Africa, the continuation of this suspension by the GMC has little practical impact on him and does not prevent him working as a medical practitioner in South Africa. Accordingly, there is no significant prejudice caused to him by reason of the proposed extension.[5]The present circumstances are that the current order will expire on 1st May 2009 unless extended by this court. I am satisfied from all the circumstances of the case that the requested extension is appropriate and that the requirements of the legislation are fully satisfied. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this application should be granted, therefore I make the necessary order of extension of the current order for suspension for a period of 12 months from and including 1st May 2009.[6]MR BRASSINGTON: My Lord, I am obliged. My Lord, I do not know if a statement of costs found its way into your papers. If I has not, can I hand it up. (handed)

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Yes.

[8]MR BRASSINGTON: Because, my Lord, we make an application for costs in this case, having succeeded in our application.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Just a moment. (pause) Yes, and you apply for those.

[10]MR BRASSINGTON: I do, my Lord.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Mr Brassington now applies for an order for costs in favour of the GMC in respect of this matter. He has asked for a summary assessment of those costs.

[12]I bear in mind the fact that the GMC wrote to the doctor's solicitors on 20th April 2009 seeking the doctor's consent to the order that I have just made so as to avoid the necessity for incurring costs by way of a hearing. On 22nd April 2009, the doctor's solicitors replied to that letter in the following terms:
"Thank you for your letters dated 8 and 20 April (with attached bundle of High Court papers). We are instructed not to agree to the extension of the interim suspension and so we are not in a position to sign any consent order."
[13]Having regard to the stance taken by the doctor, very sensibly, with regard to the matter when it appeared before the Interim Orders Panel in March 2009, it seems to me that his refusal to agree to the order sought is unreasonable. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order for costs in this case. I summarily assess those costs in the sum of £2,630.50, including VAT, in accordance with the schedule of costs handed to me this morning, which, having considered it, I am satisfied is reasonable. Accordingly, I make that order.[14]MR BRASSINGTON: I am obliged, my Lord.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Thank you very much.